anthropology : What-are-the-reasons-for-not-believing-in-the-theory-of-evolution
Answer by Trevor Best:
Thanks for posting this question. It's a great opportunity to illustrate some common misconceptions about science and evolution, as well as describe some common logical fallacies.
The first example is in your question itself, and your final line:
I intend to know scientific analysis falsifying the evolution. if you know any please share.
This is an excellent example of how science doesn't work. Scientists don't decide how they want the world to function and then go looking for evidence to prove themselves right. They instead formulate a theory as a statement that could be true (the hypothesis) or false (the null hypothesis). Then they design an experiment that could go either way. For example, if your hypothesis was "Adding sand to water raises its boiling point", the null hypothesis would be "Adding sand to water does not raise its boiling point". Then you boil water with and without sand, check the thermometer and see which is true. I actually don't know, as I haven't done the experiment. That's kind of the point.
Every time scientists examine fossils at different strata, they are looking for evidence that will either confirm or refute some hypothesis. Quite frequently, theories within the evolutionary paradigm are revised or overturned when evidence is found that doesn't fit with those theories. But, as yet, no genuine evidence has been found that would refute the entire theory of evolution.
Your question details include a lengthy quotation that is either grossly ill-informed or dishonest. It misrepresents what evolutionary theory actually claims, then pretends that evolutionary theorists really do claim those things, then points out how silly this would be.
It's a bit like saying, "People who believe the Earth is round are fools. They claim the Earth is perfectly round like a bowling ball. But look! Oceans! Mountains! This proves the Earth is flat, not round. Therefore I am right and they are wrong… ha ha!"
Do you see the problem?
Affirming the consequent
Similarly, the quotation asks questions that contain false assumptions. For example:
One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?
Here, the evolutionary theorist is invited to explain how wing stubs could have evolved into functioning wings. This is a bit like asking someone if they've stopped robbing liquor stores. If they say no, it implies they are a robber. So they say yes. But then they have affirmed the hidden claim in the question, that they used to rob liquor stores. This sort of trick will often catch the unwary, such as the people who have tried to provide plausible explanations for the "wing stub" in their answers to your question.
But actually, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that any two-legged, armless proto-bird developed two little pimples of wing stub that gradually grew over many generations until they became fully functioning wings. This is not remotely what evolutionary theory claims happened.
If you think of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds, you will notice they (almost) all have four limbs. Even whales and dolphins, if you examine their skeletons, have the bones for four limbs. Most mammals, reptiles and amphibia are quadrupeds. Some can briefly stand on their hind legs (dogs, horses, chimpanzees and so on) but because of their general body plan, they are not very stable. There are a few fairly straightforward ways to increase this stability if an organism is going to remain bipedal.
In the case of humans, we have grown very large quadriceps and gluteus maximus muscles (thighs and buttocks), and an alternating arm-leg gait that uses arms as a counter-balance. Sometimes, we also enhance our balance by pushing our arms out to each side:
This changes the centre of balance and provides greater opportunity to correct sideways wobble.
A proto-bird (velociraptor dinosaur) that could run on its hind legs could potentially go faster, and focus more easily on prey in front of it. It could even potentially use its forelegs to grasp prey. But could any quadruped actually do that?
So if a population of dinosaurs developed the ability to rear up, over many generations it could adapt to run on its rear legs, using its talons to attack, like this Utahraptor (a Velociraptor):
Note the sharp talons. This is a recast of a skeleton that was dug out of the ground. This really existed. It is not just a flight of fancy, like your "wing stubs".
Now, once we have bipedal gait, as some other answers have pointed out, the ability to push these forelegs out to the side gives greater stability and running efficiency. Once they are out to the side, any minor adaptation to the wings (or other parts of the body, such as lighter bones) that increases lift will be advantageous. The velociraptor will practically (and eventually literally) fly towards fleeing prey. Is this forelimbs-raised running stance unimaginable?
And we have lift-off…
Imagine a velociraptor leaping at its prey like a tiger, flattened proto-wings out to the side, and you start to see how this was almost a flying creature already, like the flying squirrelspointed to.
Your creationist quote also talks about feathers. Do you have a feather doona or pillow? Feathers are great insulators. They follow a fairly simple developmental pattern to make a structure that is very light compared to its surface area, capturing warm air. Much fossil evidence in the past decade has shown that many dinosaurs (not just Archaeopteryx) were feathered. Feathers are not necessary for flight, but it's easy to see how flightless dinosaurs' insulating feathers were adapted to flight.
So you see that there is no unbridgeable chasm between birds and their flightless ancestors. You have failed to consider that, in evolutionary theory, it is commonplace to find that traits have been "re-tasked", such that a structure that performed one purpose came to serve a different purpose.
Ladder of progress/Anthropocentrism
Towards the end of the quotation, I found a passage that puzzled me:
We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed.
I was amazed. What bird could they be referring to, that grew fingers at the end of its wings, which became arms? Then I realised that the author was so grossly ignorant of evolutionary theory that they apparently thought evolutionists believe in the the "ladder of progress". That is, the idea that life followed a successive progression of improvements so that each "simpler" form was replaced by a more "perfect" form, with slugs becoming fish becoming amphibians becoming reptiles becoming birds becoming mammals. This is the sort of thinking that goes with anthropocentrism, the assumption that humans are the pinnacle of creation around which all else is arranged. This is not science, it is egotism.
Mammals did not evolve from birds. Yes, it's nonsense, that's why no evolutionary biologist thinks that.
Credibility of sources
Finally, your claim:
there are many different views of creationists, cults, scientists who discount the theory of evolution…
Yes, I know that many creationists and cults discount the theory of evolution. Because, as in your question, they have already decided what they want the answer to be, and they are not interested in the evidence.
But please name these scientists who allegedly discount the theory of evolution. That takes me to my final point, which is that you need to learn to assess the credibility of a source.
If you want to believe evolution isn't real, that's your prerogative. But even if you don't decide to believe in evolution, I genuinely hope you have learnt something useful about science from this answer.
Anders Bylund has identified (in the comments) the apparent origin of the quotation in the OP's question details. It is from "BibleLife.org". The page is riddled with hopeless scientific inaccuracies. It seems to be a compilation of every mistake and deliberate misrepresentation about what evolutionary theory says and the fossil record shows in the history of human thought. As Anders notes, the site has "enough straw men in there to keep the corn fields of Iowa safe from hungry birds forevermore." Thanks for the research Anders.